Author
Topic: omfg i never seen anything like this (Read 12488 times)

This is what *kills* me!! The AR groups want to keep introducing new legislation that hurt us as well, yet the laws are already in place and NOT being enforced!!! It makes me so mad! What were the authorities thinking?!?!? Ugh!

NEW LAWS ARE NOT THE ANSWER!!! The article says right there that the old laws weren't adequately enforced! There's no way they're going to enforce the new laws on top of the old ones!

Jess-Exact point I was trying to make. The laws are not being enforced now!! Make more laws, make more laws. I am so sick of that diatribe! All more laws will do is force the responsible breeders out and the puppy millers and brokers will just keep doing what they are doing. We need to educate the dog buying public.

“A key piece of legislation is missing from the regulatory and enforcement scheme in Minnesota,” said Fry. “There is no State law allowing intervention or enforcement at all.”

It seems to me that the "laws" need to be rewritten so that they cover all the bases. Why are responsible breeders that afraid of new legislation? What breeder in the right mind would breed to the extent that this lady or others with the same intention do? Why the hell shouldn't people that are cruel, mistreat, harm, abuse, etc. be allowed to breed? Why shouldn't there be laws made to stop/regulate them? What responsible breeder would have hundreds of dogs, they wouldn't! What responsible breeder would even look at this and not wince or cry out that these people are the ones effing everything up.

What is this Fry person talking about? She's insane! Neglect laws exist in every single state throughout the US. How did what we watched on that tape not indicate gross neglect?? If the conditions that we saw on the tape existed from the beginning, enforcement agencies had *plenty* of cause for going in there and shutting her down the first time. In fact, if the laws weren't adequate, how in the world were they able to do it the second time? The bottom line is that they just didn't care until it was leaked.

Similarly, there are environmental laws that that women would have been in violation of. Agricultural laws mandate (at least they do in the State of Ohio), that you cannot maintain piles of filth either on or off of your property. The dog feces under their cages would have also been in violation of environmental laws.

People who are cruel, mistreat, harm and abuse animals are already committing illegal activities and therefore able to be prosecuted to to fullest extent of the already existing laws. Additional legislation is NOT needed here. Those who aren't doing their jobs should be ashamed of themselves.

Responsible breeders dislike new legislation because the laws are currently sufficient--it is already illegal to abuse animals, yet people do it anyway. How will new laws suddenly make the people who are already breaking the law miraculously start to obey it? We, the "responsible" are the ones who follow the law. The "irresponsible" do not. New laws will not affect them--they'll continue to break the law just as they are right now.

Rachel - Have you read the new legislation to make sure it really targets who they mean to target? There is no way the new regulations could effect a breeder like the one you got your pup from?

Claire - As I'm sure has been mentioned before, the problem with new legislation is two-fold.

#1 - It may not be enforced, which is the problem with current legislation. If it is enforced, it only affects those who actually obey the law.

#2 - Once a law is in place, it is easy to alter it until the law that "was" aimed at commercial breeders now effects hobby breeders, creating an undo burden on them or making it impossible for them to breed.

For instance, there are proposed changes to the law in NY that says anyone

Quote

"housing more than three intact female dogs that sell or offer to sell a single dog, OR persons that sell or offer to sell 13 or more dogs be defined, regulated and inspected as “pet dealers”."

The new law doesn't have language about the age of said females or the "intent" to breed them (which previously was included - females over 6 mos w/the intent to breed). So my friend who had a litter of Aussie pups would be considered a pet dealer because she has two intact adult bitches and several puppy bitches she hasn't placed in new homes yet. Or she'd be considered a dealer if both her adults had a litter in the same year, since the litters could easily end up being more than 13 puppies. She also does rescue and sometimes has bitches come to her intact - that could throw her over the limit, esp. if they can't spay the female right away (if it just had a litter or is is in heat/coming out of heat and therefore high-risk for spaying). How is this change in the law a GOOD thing for responsible breeders??

Inspections of commercial breeding facilities are of great importance to animal welfare because it is the regulatory agency that has the power to shut down facilities that do not follow the laws. Those states that do not mandate inspections are setting up laws that are rarely enforceable. Although law enforcement is already spread thin within the states, and there is a lack of funding and personnel to carefully inspect each commercial kennel, the answer is not to leave out an enforcement strategy. For states that do have some enforcement agency, those regulatory agencies that most often take charge of enforcing commercial breeding facility statutes are the various state departments of agriculture. See CO st. § 35-80-109; see also 7 DE st. § 1702 (1999). Some states grant power to the local government to inspect facilities as well as state veterinarians.

The problem with some states is that there is a discretionary aspect of some laws. Administrative agencies in some states may operate with more discretionary authority than others, leaving room for commercial breeders to be technically violating the state laws, yet never be caught doing so. See 7 DE st. § 1703(c). In a state such as Virginia, the commercial kennel is required to obtain a business license, but law enforcement officials “may” enter the facility upon complaints or upon their own motion. VA st. § 3.1-796.77:3 (2008). The passive approach taken by Virginia allows more commercial breeders to be legally licensed, but violate conditions of the license (sanitary, food, veterinary care) without proper enforcement. Similarly, Delaware structures its law very specifically, mandating specific requirements for storage, space for puppies, temperature, feeding, cleaning, ventilation, lighting, and more. DE st. § 1704 (a). The statute does not, however, address any mandatory inspection. The closest the statute comes to such provision is where it authorizes dog wardens to inspect facilities during normal business hours. DE st. § 1703. In states where there is no licensing requirement whatsoever, it is virtually impossible for law enforcement and agencies to effectively enforce the laws governing commercial breeders. At least with the licensing requirement, the state has a record of the operation with relevant information.

A more proactive state law is Nebraska’s, where the statute requires that all licensees “shall” be inspected at least once every twenty-four months. NE st. § 54-628 (2007). This statute is the affirmative enforcement of the conditions that the Nebraska statute already imposes upon commercial breeders. In Nebraska, when a person is an official licensee, he or she is aware that someone will inspect the facility at some point within a two-year period.

The variation in inspection requirements between states underlies the primary issue that allows and encourages illegitimate commercial breeders to operate. An in depth comparison of state laws demonstrates that some laws are more effective than others.

Jess, I so agree, but if there is a possibility of a loophole in the current laws, then those laws need to be tightened up! I also agree that the ones that should be enforcing these laws be held accountable as well...but if there is one itty bit of wiggle room, you can bet your life the ones that do not care will find it.

IF the current laws were tightened up, similar as to what they do for OWI (and yes I know that some habitual drunks will not give a crap about the laws and drive) and the penalties were strict enough (jail time as well as loss of all dogs (cats whatever) and profits from such, and a family member could NOT get these things back either) there is a possibility that the vast majority would stop. Not all, but many will.

The laws that have been written are weak & ineffectual, and this is known by many that do things against the law, be it this or drinking while driving. There just isn't enough law enforcement around, unfortunately. How do we stop them, I am not sure...but screaming "AR" and other such nonsense is not the way either. If there was no AR, there would be no laws protecting animals. The original ARs were developed to give animals a place in the moral system. It was later so messed up that we now are against what we originally should have been for. We need to stand strong for inhumane treatment...period, and not scream that PETA or AR is at work.

this is what i think I can't see the government allocating funds to it at the moment, nor can I see the dog wardens taking on the extra workload it requires...so i'll remain cynical for now, and pray to DoG that I'm wrong! its definitely great to see it brought in, and if it's implemented it will be even greater lol.